Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : MSFT Internet Explorer vs. NSCP Navigator -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Scott Pease who wrote (18094)	3/19/1998 2:13:00 PM
From: Thure Meyer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Scott, I'm glad you mentioned Novell. Have you had a chance to look at the MOAB stuff? I think its the right approach but can Novell convince everyone to stick with them Right now MS wants to push their server solution onto the LAN's of large companies. The previous set of LAN products was less than spectacular and they are facing very stiff competition from the embedded Novell servers as well as UNIX machines. Have you seen any trends there? Thure

To: Scott Pease who wrote (18094)	3/19/1998 5:46:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Not sure what the point of your message is, but you do know that the retail Win95 has bundled IE3 since early 97, right? (It may be bundling IE4 now). Oh, it's bundling IE4 all right. As you say, on separate CD to fill the box of air a bit more, in lieu of that useless paper documentation that used to come with it. I've been know to suffer irony impairment myself, but nobody's accused me of excessive subtlety in a while. I crossed the line into outright sarcasm long ago. Anyway, remember that "bundling" is not the correct terminology here. It's innovative integration! The point (not that I haven't beaten it into the ground here, but I'm a Letterman fan too) is that one of the many antitrust defenses raised in the current action is that "Microsoft is giving the customers what they want." Now, remember the famous "raised middle finger" compliance offer circa December? OEMs were given the the choice of the retail Windows95 release, or the current OSR with all files also in the IE dist. stripped out? The latter giving you an inoperable system, of course. But the former? It's clearly what the customers want! It's the retail best seller! So, what's the deal with the OEMs, wanting this OSR malarkey? Who cares about all the bug fixes, Fat32, new drivers? The customers obviously want the original retail release, otherwise Microsoft, which cares about its customers, would be giving the retail suckers, I mean customers, the up-to-date OSR stuff too. Bill himself has used this conundrum, presumably sans irony, in defense of the "compliance with a raised middle finger" legal strategy. Why should Microsoft be embarrassed to have offered retail Win95 as a compliance measure? And, I'm not saying anything negative about Win95 being the retail best seller. There's something deeply unaesthetic about people out there running all those 32 bit x86 systems out there as virtual 286's. With the attendant problem of all the old applications written in C with the lovely small/medium/large memory model and near and far pointers. But, it's not particularly clear that anyone with a system that didn't come bundled with Windows95 will have much satisfaction running it. That puts you on something like a Pentium 60 or 486 at best, right? Even if you put in the memory upgrade, the machine's going to be dragging its tail a bit. Oh, the techoweenies among us know how to get OSR2 without buying a new machine, but who cares about those guys? Bunch of cranio-anal whiners and commies, the lot. Cheers, Dan.